The Olympic Games and the Duke of Westminster's Appeal

22 THE OLY1 IPIG Grl. MES . ~erli suggest that we ought to have a Ministry of Sport! The money might be siwed by abolishing the :!llilucat:ion Department. "Now: Sir, I have only jotted down tlteso thoughts llli briefly as I can, and I know how easy it would l>e io ridicule them-I could do it myself for o. ponnr a line. But in all seriousness I appeal to thoso rcn.clors who still have an open mind on this subject to foco ~e ques~ion ·whether, under the influence, mainly, of II too.rapid dissemination of "news " a.nd impres– aipris, we are not becoming absurdly excitable a.bout trifles, frivolous in our judgmonts, and danger0tL~ly blliill' to the big permanent is ues." REPLY DY "THE TIMES." · Plie 'Pimes replied both to Mr. Harrison and to Mr. Now.ell Smith in a leading article on August 27 :- Mt. Harrison says that the wholo affair stinks of gate-money and professional " pot-hunting" ; Mr. Nowell Smith that these modern pseudo-Olympic Games are "rot," and "the newspaper advertise– ment of them anii the £100,000 fw1d for buying victories positively degrading." Tllis is strong ~e ; but in the mouths of two such credible witnesses it advances, if it does not make out, a cue whioh undoubtedly calls for careful considera– tion. How far do their argwnents justify so sweep– ing a condemnation ? How far are they right in decrying the efforts tha.t a.re being made to provide a fund for the !?roper tro.ining of our Olym[lie.n athletes ? On this important point Mr. He.rrison's reasoning is not, we think, quite consistent. He exclaiins that it is droll to be told that, unless e. llllDi of £100,000 sterling is raised, our lads cannot fairly compete in the foot-races and other trials of strength which all the nations have accepted ~ tJie modern equivalent of the pentathlon. Yet m the same breath he practically admits that, in view of the action taken by other countries, we can do nothing without the fund. "I know," he writes, '.' ~hat _unless similar efforts are made here few pots will be brought home." But that is precisely the reason, or one of the reasons, that dictated ~ appeal for public subscriptions which we pub– liaheil ten days ago. We are not a nation of "pot– h:~ters " ; but we do wisJi to cut a better figure hi· the Games of 1916 than we have hitherto done. Qiir national reputation as well as our national pride make that an object of real importance: 'l'hose who aigried· the appeal-Lord Grey, Lord Harris, Lord Roberts, Lord Rothschild, Lorii Strath– ""--,.:-::,- --.....:.- --oona.- and- the- Duke of Westminster-are 80 er and, responsible men who by their services on the ft~,of battl~, in the councils of the Empire, in public affain, and m the world of sport have earned a right ~ a respectful hearing. Their opinions cannot liahtlf be brush~ a.side as a ~o~o-and m!-9ohievous ~ about nothing. Before 188wng thell" appeal n may be 888Umed that they counted the cost. 'ml;ey have asked the nation to provide this money far· the·adequate representation,of the oountey at the · 01P.npio Games of 1916; and also for the general niainit of the stand~· of p_hy:9ical CSJ>acity in the British ·lales. We believe that m· 80 domg they have taken a 80~ and sensible view of the position, and t,bat~ aa ~ are; they have pointed out the only ~bi~~ of,the recovery of our lost athletic ~p. W.. llelieve also that· that prestige is ~ · recovering. Few yarioua J'eBl!OnB our two corN!Bpondents think ~; Bel~ pr~ to examine their Tl9"9 we may, perbape, flnt reassure them both on one p oint. :.Ir. H arrison need ho.,·e no fear of being dubbed a senile philosopher or a n offemino.to crank, nor will anyone look upon :.fr. Nowell Smith as n,n old fogey, because they have had tho courage to pro– test against the tmduo glorification of aLhlel,icism. \Ve have always opposed , and sha ll continue to op– pose, the setting up o[ sport us an idol. In many other respcct.s we find ourselves in agreement with om two correspondents. i\'lr. H arrison, [or instance. gives a wholly admira ble defmit ion of an amateur as one who plays a. game for " love," himself and his fellow-pln.yors finding any incidenta l expenses. Tha L is just what, it is hopod, the £ 100,000 fund will do. The British representati,·es will be amateurs in tlw strictest sonse; t heir incidental cxpen c will be defrayed by t heir fellow-players from all over the country. It is n, mistake to ta lk as i[ amateur sport does not cost money. The University Boat Huce is a case in point. It is one of the more cost ly ·:orm~ of amateur sport, and yet it is more freo than any from the taint of professiona lism. i\fr. Harrison a lso depl ores the prospect that somo of the forei gn athletes may not be real o.matew·s, and cannot be t rusted to play the game with a bsolute fairness as competitors. nor as spectators to behave like gentle – men with good humour and self-control. Here again, if history is to repeat itself, we agree. We pro. tested strongly at t,he time against some of t he in – cidents which disgraced the Games of l!JOS. But since then, though the Games at Stockholm were not altogether clear of reproach, a distinct advance has been made, \\'e venture t o believe that, owing to the gren.ter length of its traditions, t he British conception of sportsmanship has had a certain dominating influence in forming international opinion in this matter. If that is so, it may be reckoned as a really valuable result of the Olympic Ge.mes, and even as an argument for their continued exist – ence. But in any case continue they roust. Great Britain cannot at this stage, as Mr. Harrison wishes, retire from the contest. Not to go to Berlin would be an insult to om German friends and prospective hosts, as well as to the other nations engaged, which would be far more harmful than the possibility of international complications, which the Go.mes have sometimes threatened to produce in the past. The country, as we have said more than once, is com– mitted to the contest. That is why we support the appeal, which Lord Grey and his fellow-signatories have put before us, as e. national duty. Not because we should look like sulky children who will not play in a game in which they have been bee.ten, but because we a.re in honour bound to send to Berlin the best team that we can g~ tQgether,_we_commend- _ tllefuna to the generosity and public spirit of our readers; l\h. Nowell Smith maintains that we are as a nation absurdly excitable a.bout trifles, frivolous in our judgments, and dangerously blind to the big permanent issues. The criticism does not apply to this particular case. It is undoubtedly one of the big permanent issues that we should keep faith with our fellow-nations, even in the world of sport. MR. THEODORE COOK'S EXl'LANATION. Among other letters which appeared ih the voluminous correspondence which followed in The Time8 was the following from Mr. Theodore ~k, Editor of Phe Fiel,d, the British represen– tative on the International Committee :- . . "Mr. Fred?ric·Harrisoil plirases his memory of sport ~ 80 oharmmg a ~tyle that the task of answering ~ _would be_berond niy powers--88 it i., certaihly against my mclmat1on-were it not essential to